On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Tyler Durden wrote:
> Well, this is quite a post, and I agree with most of it.
>
> As for the Godel stuff, there's a part of it with which I disagree (or at
> least as far as I take what you said).
-I- didn't say this stuff, the people who did the original work did. Go
read their work.
> >If you want
> >to compare something mathematically you -must- use the same axioms and
> >rules of derivation. The -only- discussion there is one of two parts:
> >Is the sequence of applications/operators valid? (ie Proof)
> >Is the sequence terminal, does it leave room for more derivation?
> > (ie Publish or Perish)
>
>
> Well, not necessarily, unless I misunderstand you. Take the Fermat's last
> theorem example I gave (a^n+b^n=c^n for a,b,c,n integers but n>2).
> And let's say I want to "prove" (or disprove) the statement "This has no
> solution for n>2.
>
> There are two 'distinct' methods of determining the validity of the
> statement. One is by what is normally considered a "proof". In other words,
> by building up from axioms using the logical rules of the system.
>
> The other is to actually find a solution for a,b,c and n.
That is -also- considered a proof, it's correct name is "Proof by
Exhaustion". Just about anybody who follows this approach will
become exhausted too ;)
More importantly, they have to use the same base axioms as any other
proof. So your distinction is specious.
As to the bigger question, you are of course welcome to your opinion.
--
____________________________________________________________________
We don't see things as they are, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
we see them as we are. www.ssz.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anais Nin www.open-forge.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
